- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,667
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I think you're reading more into what I said than is actually there.
During Barrack Obama's 1st term he was publicly NOT a supporter of SSM. Somewhere between then and now he changed his stance. It is merely a statement of fact. It's relevance to the topic at hand is just to point out that people who don't support SSM at this moment in time are getting a rather healthy and unjust barrage of criticism considering that very recently some prominent liberals weren't even on board.
A word to the wise: Don't count your USSC rulings before they are hatched. A majority that allows certain employers to prevent their employees' insurance from covering medical procedures and medications based on the employer's religious beliefs is certainly not a slam-dunk to uphold the constitutional protections of SSM.
I certainly have my fingers crossed that they do, and eliminate all this state-by-state bigotry once and for all... but I am not at all confident in this particular SCOTUS.
So if the wind should begin to shift the other way then the people who oppose SSM aren't bigoted homophobes anymore?I'd say that the relevance is that politicians go with the way the wind blows and if it gains enough momentum and that wind shifts....so do they if they can.
So if the wind should begin to shift the other way then the people who oppose SSM aren't bigoted homophobes anymore?
Right and you heard this from another bigoted source.The dirty little secret no one seems to be willing to talk about and every proponent of homosexuality will deny is that this fight isn't really about rights. It's about "normalization" of homosexuality.
Right the fags and the illiuminaty are now poised to take over the world and are directly competing for it with Brain and Pinky.Asserting that homosexuality is just a normal lifestyle choice makes recruitment easier.
Right and you have so many examples that you can not even provide one.Societies that sanction homosexuality end up with rampant homosexuality.
No need to argue that facts are facts even when they are not liked.I know many try to argue that homosexuality isn't a choice
You experimented?but that argument is false because for many, if not all, it certainly is or was a choice.
Good thing the that we have a good number of bigoted individuals that stand guard and protect us form the deviants.Moral decay is a pretty fast growing disease with some pretty serious consequences.
Or just your paranoia.This is just one more sign that the greatest days of this country are in our history already.
In order for a right to need upholding, it need at least to be in jeopardy. Who was loosing their right to anything in the HL case?that is apples and oranges.
SSM is about the Constitution being applied equally. Hobby Lobby was about government over-reach.
One denies a right the other is seen (wrongly in my opinion but I am not a Justice) upholding a right.
So you believe that gays want to 'turn' other people gay? Oh. My. God. That believes you think that people can 'be turned gay.' I think we're back to the dinosaurs.
Also, can you please name a "society that sanctioned homosexuality that ended up with rampant homosexuality?" And it's not Rome, you've already had that explained to you.
I think you don't know what you're talking about. In both Rome and Greece, homosexuality was rampant. Of course the Bible talks of Sodom and Gomorrah which were so vile that even angels were molested but I don't suppose you'd be wanting to hear about that or believing it. I'll just tell you for a fact that homosexuals do recruit as much as possible. My brother is a homosexual and I've lived in homosexual communities for years during different periods of my life both in New Orleans and Atlanta's Midtown. I know what I'm talking about and recruitment is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest dirty little secret of the homosexual community.
In Sodom and Gomorrah, men and women were participating in acts God did not approve of, way beyond homosexuality. Of course, I'm not sure why that 'story' is relevant to a discussion on making something LEGAL. And let's see some 'modern' sources that say homosexuality was rampant in Rome and Greece. Not only that, please prove it wasnt just same-gender sex....the act does not make someone gay. I've already told you that.
As for recruiting gay men...lol, how is it any different than when straight men chase women? Please give me some examples, since you are so familiar and have seen it?
What's relevant is that moral decay and decadence does spread and eat up a society. I gave you examples of civilizations eaten up with it.
Why do you think it has to be any different than when straight men chase women in order to satisfy you that it is a regular practice among a large segment of homosexuals? Homosexuals have been trying to seduce straight men probably forever and it's absurd to pretend that doesn't happen all the time. Like I said, the real crux of this whole "marriage equivalency" crusade is purely for the sake of normalizing homosexuality (moral equivalency) in order to facilitate recruitment of potential sexual partners.
You don't have to believe it and it'll never matter in the long run because what's going to happen will happen whether you or anyone else can face the ugly truth about it or not. Suffice to say homosexuals will never be thronging to get married. Only in those rare situations when it will actually be a tax benefit for a couple will that happen. It just makes no sense for them and most homosexuals I've known have always thought marriage was a really stupid idea for any but "breeders".
LMAO...if 'straight' men are 'seduced' by gay men....lol...they arent 'straight' men.
LMAO...if 'straight' men are 'seduced' by gay men....lol...they arent 'straight' men. Some people do experiment and some people are bisexual but you cannot 'create' gays.
And please support your comments about wanting to marry....in numbers and for $$ (tax benefits)...with something besides opinion. Otherwise the exact same comments apply to straight people and their motives for marrying.
Btw, almost nothing you write takes lesbians into consideration. Why is that? Mostly because you cannot apply any of your biases to them.
I think the term you're looking for is "moral equivalency" and, yes, I would agree that moral equivalency is at the root of it all.
What's relevant is that moral decay and decadence does spread and eat up a society. I gave you examples of civilizations eaten up with it.
Why do you think it has to be any different than when straight men chase women in order to satisfy you that it is a regular practice among a large segment of homosexuals? Homosexuals have been trying to seduce straight men probably forever and it's absurd to pretend that doesn't happen all the time. Like I said, the real crux of this whole "marriage equivalency" crusade is purely for the sake of normalizing homosexuality (moral equivalency) in order to facilitate recruitment of potential sexual partners.
You don't have to believe it and it'll never matter in the long run because what's going to happen will happen whether you or anyone else can face the ugly truth about it or not. Suffice to say homosexuals will never be thronging to get married. Only in those rare situations when it will actually be a tax benefit for a couple will that happen. It just makes no sense for them and most homosexuals I've known have always thought marriage was a really stupid idea for any but "breeders".
All of this is 100% irrelevant to individual liberty. Someone's choice to marry, or not do so,is not your concern. Your personal disapproval does not provide the government the authority to make a distinction of gender in a legal contract.
If the legal contract is marriage I fully expect gender distinctions to be made since marriage isn't "a couple of something". It is one of the male and one of the female joined together. It's not two male fittings awkwardly taped together to try to complete a circuit. Or two female fittings with some sort of adapter to make them work in a way they weren't supposed to.
It's been supported in every single state where challenged. They are wasting taxpayer $$. In order to make political points. In order to retain the bigot vote.
The bold is just dehumanizing and bigoted. It actually diminishes the institution of marriage in general. "PLaying house." Hey, if it's such bull****, why are ya'll working so hard to protect it from 'the geighs!'
I suppose soon enough homosexuals will be playing husband and wife all across the nation, though. I don't know why but it seems that any society that encourages rampant homosexuality doesn't last long after that happens. When in Rome, huh? Now if we lower the age of sexual consent for boys to be molested by men, we'll be taking another glorious step down the path of Rome. First things first, though. Got to make the oxymoron of homosexual marriage the law of the land in all 50 states in order to argue that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality first. Priorities. Must have priorities.
Don't you think the bigger problem with "marriage" in the U.S. is lack of it, and/or divorce, among straight and normal heterosexuals? It's always puzzled me a bit - there is this gigantic log in the eye of the straight community regarding single motherhood and divorce, but the time and effort is expended keeping gays FROM marrying. Weird...
You might expect that, but you are wrong. The government cannot make such a distinction in any contract, law, regulation, or action without an important state interest in doing so. A dictionary definition of marriage is irrelevant, because this isn't an argument of definitions, it's one of actions. No contract, marriage or otherwise, can make that distinction without passing the test that the 14th amendment brings.
I've laughed at a few homosexuals for their fixation on getting straight men for that very reason, but that doesn't stop them from trying like hell and the normalization of homosexuality does seem to aid them in this endeavor.
I'm curious, why don't you consider yourself sexist for thinking that it's okay and usual for women to have to fend off horny men, but men shouldn't have to suffer such indignation?
That's silly. Governed absolutely can define marriage as the male and female union that nature and our government intended. Besides. No one was ever barred from marriage based on their own sex.
Why do you think I consider rude sexual advances appropriate for anyone? Merely explaining the motivation for homosexual marriage activism isn't approval of anything.
I'm curious, why don't you consider yourself sexist for thinking that it's okay and usual for women to have to fend off horny men, but men shouldn't have to suffer such indignation?
Why do you think I consider rude sexual advances appropriate for anyone? Merely explaining the motivation for homosexual marriage activism isn't approval of anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?